Hi WW
I very much like the paper but one have one issue and it relates to Tensor Innovation Partners.
At page 20 under Engineering Support the following is stated:
"Tensor Innovation partners announced a collaboration with BrainChip to develop a new technology suitable for small satellites and small launch vehicles in August 2020 but later changed direction to try and leverage Intel's Loihi fesearch product. Rationale for this move, as confirmed by Tensor includes:
1. Intel has an enormous community and support capability that helped develop its software; and
2. Brainchip's support costs did not fit with the project budget,
The Tensor project did not progress with Loihi either, due to the research nature of the chip and unavailability of test chips as and when required," Before I speak to my issue I do not disagree with the overall premise of the Engineering Support paragraph that Brainchip cannot afford to turn away real customers full stop. Totally agree. No issue point well made.
My issue is with Tensor Innovation Partners actually being an example of a real customer that was turned away for the following reasons:
1. When
@uiux discovered this Phase 1 application by Tensor referencing Brainchip I contacted Ken Scarince and his response was that it was news to him. That there had been some discussions with Tensor but that was as far as it went and he would have to make enquiries.
2. When I looked into the Tensor Phase 1 it was made under a provision for effectively start ups that had not previously been granted funding by NASA. Both partners of Tensor had for years survived on NASA grants and so they set up Tensor specifically to exploit this provision and obtain a Phase 1 grant. Neither Tensor or the partners had any neuromorphic engineering experience and as far as I could tell Tensor actually did not have any employees at all.
3. The grant under the Phase 1 from NASA would have been basically all the capital resources of Tensor with Brainchip doing all the work.
4. The EAP program run by Brainchip is to provide engineering support not to actually do all of the engineering and in fact Brainchip could have been the actual applicant under this Phase 1 and completely cut out Tensor as they were bringing nothing whatsoever to the table that I could detect where AKIDA technology engineering was concerned.
5. Brainchip at the time as clearly became evident were already in discussions with NASA and most likely Vorago and so Tensor were not in my opinion a true customer opportunity lost and in fact I think the lily may be gilded somewhat in regards to Brainchip's support costs not fitting in with project budget which was entirely made up of the Phase 1 grant and Tensor wanted to make a profit as well as pay Brainchip's engineers to do all the work.
6. The more I investigated Tensor the more they struck me as as an SN Technology Mark 2.
7. The fact that the Tensor Phase 1 was trying to leverage Loihi but it fell over confirms my opinion about the merit they were presenting to Brainchip as a partner. The former CEO who I had a lengthy conversation with regarding SN Technology at the last face to face AGM in 2019 shared my opinion about them and would have not engaged with them in the first place and as such in my opinion would very quickly have sussed out that Tensor was not a premium opportunity for Brainchip. I also suspect that the Phase 1 application that was made involving use of AKIDA did not occur with the authority or knowledge of Brainchip and was purely a speculative application made on hope.
In other words they were chancers and not worthy of Brainchip.
My anonymous opinion only of course.
FF.
AKIDA BALLISTA
(20min delay)